A problem I have with the line of thinking that talks about 'blue' states having 'fewer but better quality of children' is that it easily slides into "the Reds are obviously too irresponsible/uneducated/stupid to know that fewer kids is the smart choice," and the history of that paradigm isn't a particularly pleasant one. It can also be taken into "there's plenty of high-skilled jobs for everybody, the proles/Reds just need not to breed as much and to produce higher-quality kids."

I think Rauch is also ignoring the problems that come with below-replacement fertility levels, something Japan and Russia are struggling with going forward. If all states had blue-state fertility levels, that would come with its own consequences.

There's just this observation: in a technologically advanced society, in which it takes upwards of 24 years to learn how to successfully operate advanced machinery, early and irresponsible child rearing short-circuits that learning and leaves early parents, and their children, desperately short on opportunities. Red state values talk about abstinence and waiting until marriage to bear children, but their educational system falls so short of hitting that mark that red states have would up welfare states-- taking in more in assistance than they generate in revenue.

Blue states not only succeed in hewing to their public values better than red states, they succeed better than red states in hewing to red state values.

If Romney/Ryan wins, I look forward to the blue states merrily enjoying the (undoubtedly moral) windfall of no longer have to support red states.